Posted on 09/20/2008 9:47:31 AM PDT by Publius804
Virtue Ethics & Broken Windows: Why I am not a Libertarian
By Joe Carter
Charles Murray almost had me. When I first read Murray’s What It Means To Be A Libertarian nearly ten years ago I was compelled by the thrust of his argument. “Freedom is first of all our birthright,” Murray claimed. “An adult making an honest living and minding his own business deserves to be left alone to live his life. He deserves to be free.”
Libertarianism appeared to be an attractive political philosophy, yet something was missing. It reminded me of my high school days when after reading The Fountainhead I wanted to become an Objectivist. Becoming an objectivist would have required me to deny a concept that I had known was undeniably true: original sin. Likewise, the problem with libertarianism, like objectivism and liberalism, was that it required accepting a romanticized view of human nature.
Like other “ism’s”, libertarianism is difficult to define. Essentially, libertarians believe that each person “owns” his own life and property, and has the right to make his own decisions about how he shall live, providing he respects the rights of others to do the same. Cato Institute vice-president David Boaz adds that the basic political issue of libertarianism is the relationship of the individual to the state. (Since Boaz is one of the intellectual leaders of this philosophy I will use his “Key Concepts of Libertarianism” throughout this critique.)
The primary flaw in libertarianism is that it is rooted in an ethic of utilitarianism rather than virtue ethics. Without a person developing the corresponding moral character necessary for self-restraint, his liberty is bound to result in the harm of others. In fact, freedom without virtue is corrosive and will destroy everything within its range.
(Excerpt) Read more at culture11.com ...
What do you think, especially the libertarians who post here.
Libertarians are clueless about the nature of property.
"By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
I consider myself a Reagan Conservative and I do not support big government Republicans or compassionate conservatives.
Today, Libertarians are the ones who are pointing out the perils of big government and the State.
Quote from the Great Man Ronald Reagan...
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Yet another reason I have never been much of a Jefferson fan.
Using a communitarian argument in the name of conservatism over libertarianism. Just wow!
My impression of Libertarians is that they want to be liberated of all responsibility to the state.
Yet the freedom and property that Libertarians have, exist because the state functions well enough to protect us from foreign enemies, and to enforce the rules of a free market place, and to ensure consumer safety, etc.
Libertarians want all of the benefits of a well functioning state, with none of the restrictions and without having to pay for it. If they ever realize their dream, we will descend to the level of Somalia.
Republicans want a balanced responsible government that is fun effectively, efficiently and openly, that is limited in scope without shirking essential responsibilities.
Because you're utterly incapable of addressing his observation. Libertarians are shallow thinkers.
I don’t believe I have ever read anything from the Great Reagan with which I disagree- and I agree with this ...for the most part. Milton Friedman said that Libertarians were trying to “reinvent the wheel” and remained a Republican until he died.
Here’s the problem: Libertarians cannot convince the majority that what they BELIEVE is not part of the political process. The choices we make are far more than just economical. And this includes the pols we vote for.
On the populist side- no one will ever vote for a party whose noisiest members are about nothing more than legalizing drugs and other venal personal failures.
That’s because there’s not much there to address, Mojave. Jefferson’s basic argument is communitarian in nature, that’s all.
Are you a fan of communitarianism and, in turn, the nightmare scenarios said philosophy often engenders? If so, that’s fine, but at least admit as much.
You’re Jeffersonian - that’s great. Me? I much prefer Patrick Henry. As for your personal slight - not worth addressing and, beyond this response, neither are you for having made it.
That is unfortunate but that is not the case with me. I have strong libertarian sympathies but I do see some short comings. This post is not meant to bait but to encourage discussion between libertarians and conservatives, since the alternative is unthinkable - an egomaniac with big ears who wants to institute the fairness doctrine.
Nah, it’s a chance for libertarians to smear and deride our Founding Fathers. See post #4.
Libertarians, imho, will never be a major party in the U.S. but their influence has been tremendous in the past.
Do you remember Barry Goldwater?
Do you remember Ronald Reagen’s first speeches at the Republican Party conventions?
All had DEFINITE Libertarian themes...
For me, I believe in the Divine. I am pro-life, anti-drug and other socially conservative views. But I am wary of a State which wants to force its beliefs on the individual.
The Libertarians keep us honest and they are doing so now pointing out the follies of a big, overbearing State.
Property laws are the result of societal consensus and differ from state to state. You know nothing.
Paulsen’s over at liberty post still arguing fervently against the second Amendment. Go back him up.
Bill Maher, the country's best known libertarian "thinker". is promoting Obama. Have you gotten your MoveOn bumbersticker yet?
Best known in the country.
Libertarianism is the only POLITICAL philosophy compatible with freedom. When individuals subscribe to libertarianism as a POLTICAL philosophy, it doesn’t follow that they don’t have any other beliefs that guide them in their personal and spiritual lives. If a political system, through it’s laws, does not hold that individuals own their own lives, then the battle of alternatives begins, and no matter what answer prevails politically, and ends up being enshrined in law, it will be diametrically opposed to the personal/religious/philosophical beliefs of many individuals, and thus interfere with their freedom to live their own lives according to their own beliefs.
If you don’t own your own life in the eyes of the law, the alternatives are either that the state owns your life, or that some version of “God” owns your life. Those of us who are vehemently opposed to the communist/socialist notion that the individual exists to serve the state and the state’s idea of a “good” society, are obviously appalled by the first alternative. But the second pits the specifics of different indivduals’ deeply held beliefs against each other, and unvariably result in laws which enshrine a religious/spiritual worldview that many people disagree with.
If the law holds that each citizen owns his/her own life, then each citizen can proceed to choose to “assign” his/her life to another owner: to the “God” of his/her belief, to the purely secular humanist society of communism/socialism, to the mystical concept of “the environment” (i.e. giving equal weight to the full spectrum of plant and animal life, rather than to the humans-only value of communism/socialism), to the pure objectivist pursuit of self-interest, or whatever. The only alternative to libertarianism as the philosophical basis for a political system, is that the law pre-empts the individual’s right to make these choices — a result which necessarily infringes on the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and in practice infringes on many other Constitutionally guaranteed rights as well, as those rights are limited and balanced in order serve whatever values the state has placed ahead of individual liberty.
Maher is a dem. Boortz is a Repub. Both claim the libertarian mantle, and neither earn it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.